These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38586613)

  • 1. Nationwide assessment of practice variability in the utilization of hysteropexy at laparoscopic apical suspension for uterine prolapse.
    Cox KR; Ferzandi TR; Dancz CE; Mandelbaum RS; Klar M; Wright JD; Matsuo K
    AJOG Glob Rep; 2024 Feb; 4(1):100322. PubMed ID: 38586613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial.
    Nager CW; Visco AG; Richter HE; Rardin CR; Komesu Y; Harvie HS; Zyczynski HM; Paraiso MFR; Mazloomdoost D; Sridhar A; Thomas S;
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Aug; 225(2):153.e1-153.e31. PubMed ID: 33716071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Vaginal hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-year cost-effectiveness Markov model.
    Wallace SL; Syan R; Lee K; Sokol ER
    BJOG; 2024 Feb; 131(3):362-371. PubMed ID: 37667669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy vs Total Vaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Anterior and Apical Prolapse: Surgical Outcome and Patient Satisfaction.
    Haj-Yahya R; Chill HH; Levin G; Reuveni-Salzman A; Shveiky D
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020 Jan; 27(1):88-93. PubMed ID: 30802607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Trends in Hysteropexy and Apical Support for Uterovaginal Prolapse in the United States from 2002 to 2012.
    Madsen AM; Raker C; Sung VW
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(6):365-371. PubMed ID: 28723720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
    Schulten SFM; Detollenaere RJ; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HWF
    BMJ; 2019 Sep; 366():l5149. PubMed ID: 31506252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Nager CW; Visco AG; Richter HE; Rardin CR; Rogers RG; Harvie HS; Zyczynski HM; Paraiso MFR; Mazloomdoost D; Grey S; Sridhar A; Wallace D;
    JAMA; 2019 Sep; 322(11):1054-1065. PubMed ID: 31529008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study.
    Gutman RE; Rardin CR; Sokol ER; Matthews C; Park AJ; Iglesia CB; Geoffrion R; Sokol AI; Karram M; Cundiff GW; Blomquist JL; Barber MD
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jan; 216(1):38.e1-38.e11. PubMed ID: 27596620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.
    Detollenaere RJ; den Boon J; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Vierhout ME; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HW
    BMJ; 2015 Jul; 351():h3717. PubMed ID: 26206451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Impact of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy and Vaginal Hysterectomy With Suspension of the Uterosacral Ligaments on Sexual Function in Women With Uterine Prolapse: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Comparative Study.
    Detollenaere RJ; Kreuwel IA; Dijkstra JR; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HW
    J Sex Med; 2016 Feb; 13(2):213-9. PubMed ID: 26805940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.
    Maher C; Yeung E; Haya N; Christmann-Schmid C; Mowat A; Chen Z; Baessler K
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2023 Jul; 7(7):CD012376. PubMed ID: 37493538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.
    Schulten SF; Detollenaere RJ; IntHout J; Kluivers KB; Van Eijndhoven HW
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Aug; 227(2):252.e1-252.e9. PubMed ID: 35439530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Statewide geographic variation in hysterectomy approach for pelvic organ prolapse: a county-level analysis.
    Latack KR; Moniz M; Hong CX; Schmidt P; Malone A; Kamdar N; Madden B; Pizzo CA; Thompson MP; Morgan DM
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2023 Sep; 229(3):320.e1-320.e7. PubMed ID: 37244455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.
    Meriwether KV; Antosh DD; Olivera CK; Kim-Fine S; Balk EM; Murphy M; Grimes CL; Sleemi A; Singh R; Dieter AA; Crisp CC; Rahn DD
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Aug; 219(2):129-146.e2. PubMed ID: 29353031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy-a multicentre randomised controlled trial (LAVA trial).
    van IJsselmuiden MN; van Oudheusden A; Veen J; van de Pol G; Vollebregt A; Radder CM; Housmans S; van Kuijk S; Deprest J; Bongers MY; van Eijndhoven H
    BJOG; 2020 Sep; 127(10):1284-1293. PubMed ID: 32267624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women.
    Geoffrion R; Larouche M
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2021 Apr; 43(4):511-523.e1. PubMed ID: 33548503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study.
    Rahmanou P; Price N; Jackson SR
    Int Urogynecol J; 2015 Nov; 26(11):1687-94. PubMed ID: 26142347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Defining mechanisms of recurrence following apical prolapse repair based on imaging criteria.
    Bowen ST; Moalli PA; Abramowitch SD; Lockhart ME; Weidner AC; Ferrando CA; Nager CW; Richter HE; Rardin CR; Komesu YM; Harvie HS; Mazloomdoost D; Sridhar A; Gantz MG;
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Nov; 225(5):506.e1-506.e28. PubMed ID: 34087229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effect of hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy on the outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
    Mao M; Fu H; Wang Q; Bai J; Zhang Y; Guo R
    Maturitas; 2023 Apr; 170():58-63. PubMed ID: 36773501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.
    Meriwether KV; Balk EM; Antosh DD; Olivera CK; Kim-Fine S; Murphy M; Grimes CL; Sleemi A; Singh R; Dieter AA; Crisp CC; Rahn DD
    Int Urogynecol J; 2019 Apr; 30(4):505-522. PubMed ID: 30741318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.